(License switch deadline is approaching. Dear editors, mind telling us what are your thoughts on the subject?)

Line 22:

Line 22:

== Switching from BY-SA to BY ==

== Switching from BY-SA to BY ==

After a chitchat during the iSummit 2007, I realized that for the purpose of this wiki, as well as trying to stick to a license similar to BSD, we should use BY instead of BY-SA, as BY-SA is more akin to GFDL than BSD. Feedback welcome, and please do, because if nobody cares I'll simply make the switch in 30 days.--[[User:Saoshyant|Ivo]] 06:53, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

After a chitchat during the iSummit 2007, I realized that for the purpose of this wiki, as well as trying to stick to a license similar to BSD, we should use BY instead of BY-SA, as BY-SA is more akin to GFDL than BSD. Feedback welcome, and please do, because if nobody cares I'll simply make the switch in 30 days.--[[User:Saoshyant|Ivo]] 06:53, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

+

+

:Jean-Marc has proposed to dual-license wiki content as CC-BY and BSD. He states "that anything there can [then] be turned into code easily". This might be interesting to consider. Any thoughts?

Latest revision as of 14:10, 12 July 2007

I have not waived copyright on any of my contributions, which are *not* in the public domain. Andrel 08:59, 13 November 2006 (PST)

Well, something had to be put on that page, and now that I look at it, I probably should have started a discussion on it first. Pretty irresponsible. Go me.

I doubt though that most people would appreciate using GFDL for wiki contributions, and considering specifications under Xiph are always (usually?) under the PD, the wiki stuff, I thought, should be under it too.

Let's start a proper discussion on this as I believe it's an important matter, considering other places may/will want to use content from the wiki.--Saoshyant 06:08, 14 November 2006 (PST)

I tend to prefer copyleft for my work, but I understand and respect the reasons Xiph has chosen to use other licenses for their code. My biggest objection to public domain here is the lack of BSDish warranty disclaimer. Andrel 14:21, 14 November 2006 (PST)

BSD wouldn't be a bad idea, if it weren't for the fact it's mostly about software and binary code, so the implications for documentation are not clear. Could we try a CC license? Would you have any in mind?--Saoshyant 02:36, 15 November 2006 (PST)

BSD and its cousin MIT X/11 have both been used for man pages and other documentation. I haven't spent much time reading the CC licenses, because of their no-commercial-use clauses. Andrel 16:52, 20 November 2006 (PST)

The NC clause is totally optional. For this wiki, BY-SA is probably the best option.--Saoshyant 01:26, 22 November 2006 (PST)

Since there hasn't been further discusion on this, I'm taking the liberty of choosing a CC license to put all of the wiki's content. It's the BY-SA, which allows derative works, as well as commercial use, but all with credit.--Saoshyant 10:21, 28 December 2006 (PST)

Version 3

There's an update to the CC licenses in general. If no one opposes it, I'll be updating XiphWiki's license to reflect the update.--Saoshyant 08:27, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Switching from BY-SA to BY

After a chitchat during the iSummit 2007, I realized that for the purpose of this wiki, as well as trying to stick to a license similar to BSD, we should use BY instead of BY-SA, as BY-SA is more akin to GFDL than BSD. Feedback welcome, and please do, because if nobody cares I'll simply make the switch in 30 days.--Ivo 06:53, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

Jean-Marc has proposed to dual-license wiki content as CC-BY and BSD. He states "that anything there can [then] be turned into code easily". This might be interesting to consider. Any thoughts?